+ 在哪里?在定义的电子邮件地址中?

发布于 2024-10-03 21:09:16 字数 1023 浏览 2 评论 0原文

我知道电子邮件地址的本地部分(@ 符号之前)可以包含 +。 + 之后的所有内容都可以被电子邮件系统用于过滤和其他用途。但电子邮件本身是按+号之前的部分发送的。

示例:

[email protected]         Delivered to larry mailbox on foo.com
[email protected]           Delivered to jim mailbox on foo.com
[email protected]       Also delivered to larry mailbox on foo.com. The +1 can be
                      used for filtering or something else by the recipient
[email protected] Also delivered to larry mailbox on foo.com

以上适用于 GMail、Yahoo 和其他系统。

问题:RFC 中到底在哪里定义了它?我查看了但找不到它。

I know that email addresses, in the local part (before the @ sign), can include a +. And everything after the + can be used by the email system for filtering and other uses. But the email itself is delivered per the part before the + sign.

Example:

[email protected]         Delivered to larry mailbox on foo.com
[email protected]           Delivered to jim mailbox on foo.com
[email protected]       Also delivered to larry mailbox on foo.com. The +1 can be
                      used for filtering or something else by the recipient
[email protected] Also delivered to larry mailbox on foo.com

The above works on GMail, Yahoo and other systems.

Question: Where exactly is it defined in the RFCs? I looked but couldn't find it.

如果你对这篇内容有疑问,欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论,获取更多帮助,或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。

扫码二维码加入Web技术交流群

发布评论

需要 登录 才能够评论, 你可以免费 注册 一个本站的账号。

评论(1

找个人就嫁了吧 2024-10-10 21:09:16

+ 未在用于邮件寻址的 RFC RFC 822 中定义。它是一些 MTA 的实现,旨在将传入的邮件过滤到单个邮箱,但当前的 RFC 不支持向发件人公开邮箱结构/过滤器。

它确实将地址本地部分的处理留给了 MTA,MTA 正是这些扩展的升级地点。

有一个提议的 RFC,RFC 5233,用于详细解释加寻址的子寻址。

因此,正在进行标准化工作,但这还没有发生。我知道并非所有 MTA 都使用 + 寻址来实现此目的。

The + isn't defined in the RFC for mail addressing, RFC 822. It is an implementation by some MTAs in an effort to filter incoming messages to a single mailbox, but the current RFC doesn't' support exposing mailbox structure/filters to senders.

It does leave the handling of the local portion of the address up to the MTA which is where these extensions have been promoted.

There is a proposed RFC, RFC 5233, for sub addressing that explains plus addressing in detail.

So there is ongoing work to standardize it, but that hasn't yet happened. I know not all MTAs use + addressing for this purpose.

~没有更多了~
我们使用 Cookies 和其他技术来定制您的体验包括您的登录状态等。通过阅读我们的 隐私政策 了解更多相关信息。 单击 接受 或继续使用网站,即表示您同意使用 Cookies 和您的相关数据。
原文